[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: wip-cite status question and feedback |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Apr 2020 00:19:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
address@hidden writes:
> Just one question concerning typed citations. citeX is good and
> concise, but why limit this to only one character?
Becauseā¦ it is good and concise? ;)
> What about allowing something more verbose? Perhaps
> "cite-intext:" or "cite:intext:"?
Note the latter introduces an ambiguity: [cite:see: @doe was right!].
Fixing it requires two colons in default cite prefix: [cite::@doe].
I don't think we want this.
The former doesn't have this bias.
> The simple syntax is great for most cases, but if you want to support
> some of those not so common biblatex commands, this might be better.
Alphanumeric suffix provides 62 combinations, which should hopefully be
enough for any citation back-end out there (I'm looking at you
biblatex). It's not terribly readable, tho, as you point out.
> What do you think?
This is a conciseness versus readability problem, not a technical one,
as long as we do not allow too much, from a parser point of view.
I have no strong opinion on the topic. It would be more valuable to hear
from actual citations users. What would they prefer?
> Concerning some other open questions, I suggest sticking to what
> citeproc-org uses:
>
> 1. For the bibliography:
>
> #+bibliography: something.bib
> (Could this be a list containing multiple files?)
Multiple keywords may be more appropriate, particularly if you need to
spell out absolute file names.
Org can provide a function listing all of them anyway.
> 2. Placing the bibliography with:
>
> #+bibliography: here
> (Ideally, it would be possible to have this multiple times, perhaps
> with some filters, like printing only the works of a certain author,
> or with certain keywords, or so. But that's, of course something for
> later...)
It is smart, but I'm not sure I like using the same keyword for two
different things. OTOH, I don't have a better idea.
> 3. Setting the style:
> #+CSL_STYLE: "some-style.csl"
>
> Of course, if you're using biblatex or natbib you'll need another
> option for that.
I think this part is out of Org's scope. Since values between various
citation back-ends are probably not compatible, e.g., some may require
a file, others a style name, normalization is not useful here. They can
use whatever keyword they fancy.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, (continued)
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/11
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Nicolas Goaziou, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/12
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback,
Nicolas Goaziou <=
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Stefan Nobis, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Denis Maier, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Bruce D'Arcus, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, denis . maier . lists, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Joost Kremers, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Stefan Nobis, 2020/04/13
- Re: wip-cite status question and feedback, Richard Lawrence, 2020/04/18